Shall we allow some facts to intrude? Roughly 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. There are only four doctors in the entire United States who are willing to carry out a third trimester abortion. That's FOUR. In the WHOLE COUNTRY.
*
Let's put the rhetoric of murdering babies in it's appropriate context.

I wonder how many people have noticed the similarity between NRA and NARAL.

True, they belong to opposite ends of the political spectrum, although I bet there is a lot of overlap, and a lot of people (like me) despise both. Still, they seem to be political opponents.

But what they have in common is that they are both typically American organizations and inherit from the 18th century an exaggerated notion of personal autonomy.

Many recent psychological experiments show that this exaggerated notion of personal autonomy is just that, exaggerated. When people are shown four lines of which one is clearly the longest, people will judge the second longest to be the longest, if some people before them have made that choice.

Moreover, we are all interconnected in ways which are hard to separate.

When you own a gun, you may put other people's lives at risk. And when a woman has an abortion she is depriving her parents, and her husband if she has one, of a grandchild or a child respectively. The Court feels that she has a right to trample on their interests since it is "her body after all."
But is the Court right?

By comparison, abortion has been legal in India since the 70's but only for the first trimester or half as long as it is legal in the US. There are no crowds marching to eliminate this first trimester and no crowds marching to eliminate the limit.

There is general acceptance of the fact that personal autonomy does exist, but has limits defined by the interests of society and of others.

The American notion of personal autonomy is an outdated 18th century notion. It has been kept at bay by religion, for religion emphasizes not autonomy but obedience to God. But now God is out of the picture (except in the minds of those whom liberals regard as Neandethals).

So what we have now is an unchecked individualism, better described under an older term, narcissism. A pity really, but something deep in the US political (and economic) system.

"And when a woman has an abortion she is depriving her parents, and her husband if she has one, of a grandchild or a child respectively."
Let's get clear here. The man supplies an infanitessimal quantity of dna, and everything that is the baby has been harvested from the mother's body along with her infanitessimal bit of dna.
At most she is delaying the 'provision' of offspring to her "owners", of which half, the maternal side, controlled their own reproduction as best they could, in their interests, which are no different from her husband, and surrounding family.

"The man supplies an infanitessimal quantity of dna, and everything that is the baby has been harvested from the mother's body along with her infanitessimal bit of dna."
.
So what you are saying is that you are the "apple of your parent's eye"? Or; maybe more accurately, the "persimmon of your parent's eye"? At least for the persimmons in our yard - you need a male tree and a female tree for the female tree to bear fruit - neither can do it alone.

DAG001 says, "Right, a family issue, but so many 'anti-government' fanatics think they should use the government to impose their religious beliefs on all families."

To call it a family issue is basically a lie. Husbands not only do not have a say, they do not even have the right to know. So it is basically just the woman and her doctor, and since he is her hireling, basically just the woman.

Biology is fact. For men, reproduction is 'fire and forget'. All the risk to life and limb is the woman's burden. The one who bears the price, is the one who has the say.
Men want to worry about a child, when they can sow so many wild oats with not a care in the world, but when they want something they don't have to bear the real cost, they whine about not getting their candy.

bampbs says: "Until a fetus is capable of living independently, a woman can reasonably claim that she is being held to involuntary servitude, contrary to the 13th Amendment, if forced to carry that fetus."

While I agree with some of what you say, there are difficulties with this particular paragraph. In the first place "capable of living independently" is not the standard we apply to patients in hospitals. Many would die without life support, but we do not consider that a good enough reason to kill them or even to let them die. So the fetus is being asked to meet an unreasonably high standard. I would consider heartbeat or ability to feel pain to be better standards.

In the second place, if we are talking late abortion we are also talking about a case where the woman has already NOT exercised her option to have an abortion earlier. So if the fetus is say five months old, then she is complicit in the FACT that it is five months old. She could have had an abortion earlier when it was less troubling to both society and the fetus.

Consider this analogy. You have a right not to become a physician. But if you do become a physician, then if someone in your waiting room or even someone in the next airplane seat is sick, you cannot deny that help.

Your own previous actions, yours in becoming a physician, and the woman's in not seeking abortion earlier, create a responsibility and you cannot duck it by saying, "it would be slavery."

The case would of course be different in the case of a woman who discovers late in the pregnancy that she cannot continue the pregnancy without serious risk to herself. Then this fresh knowledge relieves her of responsibility. But barring such knowledge, she IS responsible.

One more thing. It is only now that women are being allowed to fight, and they have always been excused from selective service. This is in accordance with an unvoiced prejudice that women really are children and cannot be held responsible for their acts. Men are by contrast held responsible for 18 years of child support even if the pregnancy is the result of a single act of carelessness.

It is time to tell women, "You are adults and responsible for your choices just as a man would be."

It's easy for us to conclude from a simple, somewhat objective perspective, that abortion is the murder of a child. However, the situation is far more complex than that, and boiling it down to a single, not particularly true line doesn't help, in the same way that saying no access to guns will solve the issue of violence. However, I will say this. Does it really matter if an conscious or unfeeling baby, who hasn't lived at all and may not live fulfilled in this difficult world, is removed early on? Keeping in mind that abortion led to drastic falls in crime rates, indicating it was the poorer, less capable women who turned to abortion, abortion is an easy escape from a potentially neglectful, difficult childhood and a hard life. Yes, I appreciate that this view could lead to recklessness with sexual behavior (which is ingrained in Western culture anyway) and may limit us to how far we value "life", but since there are millions of suffering children whose living, conscious lives are painfully undervalued, the painless removal of one who could be waiting to join their ranks should not be the issue we are concerned.

Wouldn't that be wonderful. A system where high school education is accessed by 100% of the population, not 85%, to be taught values in life in the land of equality. Where one in four women in America are not the victims of spousal abuse at some point in their life in the land of morality. Where your socio-economic class isn't likely to be determined by how wealthy your parents are in the land of opportunity. It's all easy for us to wish these problems away. However, it won't be easy, and as long as we fight over abortion and ideological values rather than face reality, it seems these problems will stay.

You gave all good reasons for advocating what I proposed... Don't take the easy way out... Don't be lazy... They are all better, more humane, ways of solving our problems than advocating pre-birth eugenics.

I disagree with J.F. | ATLANTA regarding same-sex marriage being correct. And; I am against abortion, and for greater control on access to guns. However, these topics are not what the blog posting is really about.
I agree with J.F. | Atlanta completely regarding "...not all contentious social issues boil down to, or should be boiled down to, rights to be disputed in courts." After all; the U.S. Constitution is not "Gospel"... Or of any other wholesome Worldview (Religion) Philosophy... Is it? :-)

Kemp wrote "let's be honest.."
So, in that spirit: about 40 third trimester abortions are performed every day. These are fully viable humans, executed in the womb, dismembered, discarded.
We as a people have yet to fully realize the violence done to these tiny humans. When the truth comes out, it will be our shame. We are are committing crimes against out own humanity.
We have a blanket "right to kill" that extends until live birth, how can that be reconciled with a right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Or due process for that matter.

The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy. This indicates your extremist position is not based on fact (there is no 'blanket 'right to kill''). Another figure indicates about 1,000 to 1,500 late abortions a year (late = after 20 weeks--earlier than the 3rd trimester). This is not your figure of 14,000+ annually. You seem to be uninformed or dishonest.

So in the spirit of honesty -- if life begins at preganancy, when does the life of the mother end?

Lets say my math is off, and it is 3 a day. That is still 3 human lives snuffed out. But they are not "snuffed" a doctor cuts their legs off, they struggle as they bleed to death.
For numbers I was using a recent article (New Yorker?) about the remaining late-term abortionists.
So, lets say only one child ever dies this way, is it ok? Is it for a "greater good"?
Pregnancy is a temporary condition, the mother's life will go on.
A blanket right to kill sure does exist in Washington state, and many other places.

Question: when the Pre-natal test for homosexuality is available, will the left propose laws protecting unborn gays?

I did not approve of these late abortions, I stated that the legislative option exists for banning these abortions. And I would vote for such a ban except when risking the life of the mother, while still advocating the right of women to consider early abortions. I more strongly advocate the right of all children to receive scientifically based education about their reproductive function so the can, as teenagers and adults make better, more sound decisions about their sexual activity in the first place. But this aspectd is usually lost in the hyperbole of argument you seem to prefer.

The death of any human being is certainly not something to take lightly. But equally important is considering the life of all human beings -- which includes the women with unwanted pregnancies. As a father of four I can testify to the obvious that pregnancy is certainly not a temporary condition -- your answer to my question is entirely inadequate and fallacious. As you show a distinct tendency to mistate facts, your argument about Wash. state is quesitonable. And, homsexuality has nothing to do with this conversation at all. Why bring it up?

All human beings? All except the unborn, you mean.
Too hyperbolic for you?
My point is that your four children were completed genetically many months from birth and were already human, and alive, just as we are now. And in time they gained the ability to feed themselves, walk and express their desires and needs. Birth was an arbitrary waypoint to assign rights. In every case, an effective abortion is fatal to the unborn, a human with her mother's eyes, or her grandfather's misguided leftist tendencies.
I brought up homosexuals because they are the popular cause today. And, it is legal to kill them, if it is done pre-natally. (as it is legal to kill females, males, blacks or hispanics)
Some estimates say that 60% of abortions are to minority women. Where is the liberal outrage at this terrible injustice?

Dear C, your polemics against the 'left' (misguided) or liberals (who are the only ones outraged at injustice?) are really immaterial here. I do not agree with any statement about 'mass killing' since it is used by people unwilling to discuss a difficult issue. I can agree that 'life' begins at insemination, but will always ask, when does the life of the mother end in this equation. And when 50% of all fertilized human ova become 'naturally' terminated (without intervention) you have to rethink the terminology you use for a smaller proportion of these fertilizations that are actively terminated, for whatever reason and by anyone. That minorities have the most difficulty with abortion probably has something to do with the education they receive as children, which is, indeed outrageously, even at this late stage generally less well funded than 'non-minorities' -- a fact that has existed since before the 1970s. You should show some of this outrage yourself -- improve the lives of everyone to reduce the number of people who come to the point of determining they need an abortion. Being angry about the 'killing' does not add to the serious consideration this issue demands; just as some make silly arguments supporting abortion rights.

Dear D,
I am very willing to discuss difficult issues, even in pictures and video. And, yes, I am outraged at the killing of any innocent life. My outrage compels me to address this, as stories of slavery compelled the evangelical Christians of the 19th century to wage war against their brothers to end slavery.
Your statements about "fertilized ova" (read; feta) is immaterial as we were talking about abortion, the active termination of that life. Natural terminations can be reduced through lessing the stress of pregnancy, stress to the mother, not smoking, abstaining from drugs and alcohol and good nutrition. Similar measures keep infants healthy and growing. It would be just as off subject to mention SIDS.

"mass killing" I believe you mis-read. Never do I mention mass killing. Abortions are not just 'deaths' they are killings.

Minorities are target for abortion by a for-profit abortion industry founded by a Nazi sympathizer, Margaret Sanger. The "clinics" are in depressed areas, protected by the institutional liberalism of major cities. That African-Americans and now Latin Americans, are rejecting conservative thought, they are gong to be trapped into defending abortion as it is the first and most important issue of the Democrat Party. (As slavery was to their political ancestors)
It is a political lie reminiscent of Goebbels to say poverty is either a 'cause for' or 'solved by' abortion.
By involving people in abortion, selling it, disguising it as a reasonable choice, the abortion industry makes individuals a part of it. They can never admit their wrongdoing, as that would be admitting to murder of their own child. Whom would admit to that?

As for education, I agree that fact-based education on matters concerning biology, history, math and physics is essential for rational discussion. Providing that education, of the genetic uniqueness, biological development, and beauty of the unborn is a dear avocation for me.

Nonsense you say? Check out this snippet from the interwebs: "Sanger, in her book The Pivot of Civilization, advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities."
Sounds pretty Nazi to me.

Fair question, but I wonder if it really matters in this context. It seems that anti-abortionist extremists do not seem to care, preferring to vent some kind of internal rage through this topic and onto anyone they deem an 'enemy', as you can see above. It seems the 'nazi' epithet is pretty widely used on both sides of this issue and many are not interested in the big picture. As far as I am concerned there is no 'absolute' answer to this issue and am therefore interested in getting the facts and arguing based on those facts. My personal record (as a male) is 1 abortion, 4 healthy kids, and 2 spontaneous abortions when trying to have kids. The later 6 pregnancies with the same woman. For what that is worth.

I read the 50% factoid only recently in a fairly reliable source (a commercial media outlet as opposed to the many polemic organisations and websites on both sides of this issue), but I forget now the source. I was struck by your question and wanted to make sure as best I could, this being such an infected issue. So I googled '50% of all pregnancies' since that was the statement in the source. Among many other hits, I came to http://www.emcom.ca/health/abortion.shtml and did a little reading, coming to the conclusion that his was a fairly reliable source, but would probably not be accepted by most US anti-abortionists. Wiki also cites this and the NIH (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage), this also provides some good background, but you have to do your own digging to make sure. The American Pregnancy Association (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html) puts it this way 'There are approximately 6 million pregnancies every year throughout the United States: 4,058,000 live births; 1,995,840 pregnancy losses' indicating an approx. 33% loss rate. This last leaves room for the other sources 'estimations', but seems fairly reliable also.

I have a hard time accepting the fact that humanity begins at the moment a child's head fully exits the birth canal as children are routinely born prematurely as early as the sixth month of pregnancy. If the U.S. Supreme Court, in its wisdom, says otherwise though who am I to object that the notion is being "rammed down" my throat.

The reality of the SCOTUS -- is that it has always been political. From its inception to the first appointments and first decision when the 'men' on the Court were among the so revered 'founding fathers', to RvW and since (though now not all the judges are men). Most 'anti' comment reflects the idealized historical view that the constitution was perfectly designed by a set of demigods who could see into the future for all time. Presidents and congressmen have always been elected for political reasons and the composition of the Court has always been among those political considerations.

Arguing that amending the constitution is easy simply ignores the huge amount of political energy (money and otherwise) spent on passing the prohibition amendment, women's right to vote (btw, whatever happened to the ERA?), not to mention the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments arising as they did out of a war fought by wackos insisting on their 'state's rights' to mistreat human beings.

Hiding behind simplistic statements that 'we are governed by laws, not men' ignores the messy reality of human politics -- that all these laws were passed by humans who are, indeed, infinitely fallible. This includes the humans we now collectively refer to as our founding fathers.

Living with other human beings is a messy business, the balance of rights between these human beings is very complicated (an understatement) and the Supreme Court and the court system has a rightful place in determining that balance, which was, indeed, the intention of those founding fathers. And being human, court decisions will not always lead to fair results, but things have turned out generally positively (with more than a few bumps) over these two hundred plus years.

If Roe vs. Wade were repealed, it seems unlikely that much would change. The blue states would of course maintain legal abortion, and those are the states where most of the abortions are happening anyway. If Texas and its kind ban the practice, then move somewhere else if it matters to you that much.

Right, tell that to a 14, 15, 16, year old abused by their daddy or their 'boyfriend'. There are many less extreme instances where a woman becomes pregnant without the sound, healthy back-up of family or society.

Individual rights are part of the US Constitution and, well, that means all individuals living in the entire US. Your argument is pretty silly...Or maybe they don't repeat that pledge that ends 'and justice for all' in Texas schools every morning.

You know as well as the rest of us that the vast, vast majority of abortions are used as a form of retrospective birth-control. Abortion because of rape and incest are rare -- but provide a specious way of justifying this mass killing.

I had a member of the senate of my state legislatue tell me that "Most abortions are performed on prostitutes" -- his way of telling me that this is the prostitute's business as an occupational hazzard. That this man helped make state law on this subject is appalling -- but not atypical of the level of practiced ignorance that the pro-abortion side brings to the debate.

I didn't quite get your point here -- other than your statement of 'mass killing' which is a favorite extremist position of the anti-abortion crowd. That abortion is used as retro birth-control is certainly correct, especially in a country that treats scientific education regarding human reproductive functions as some kind of anti-christ, anti-god propaganda. This latter statement applies to places like Texas, where daddies still beat their kids as 'discipline' and argue against reasonable educational policy. These daddies don't necessarily rape their kids, nor do these boyfriends, but the girls are still abused and, in many cases, less capable of making a sound, educated decision about their sexual activity. And the boys are not educated to make sound, well-adjusted decisions about their sexual activity either.
I do not agree with any statement about 'mass killing' since it is used by people unwilling to discuss a difficult issue. I can agree that 'life' begins at insemination, but will always ask, when does the life of the mother end in this equation. And when 50% of all fertilized human ova become 'naturally' terminated (without intervention) you have to rethink the terminology you use for a smaller proportion of these fertilizations that are actively terminated, for whatever reason.

Please let me respond:
* "Mass killing" means death in enormous numbers. Abortions since 1973 total c. 55,000,000. Is that a mass number? Are the aborted killed? If the answers to those questions are "Yes," then "mass killing" is not an "extremist position." It is a statement of fact. (Or, is it not a statement of fact?)
* Your remarks on sex education are cliches. I teach high school and the mechanics of sexuality are well-known to students.A public school three blocks from here has a day-care center for student-mother babies. I am a New Yorker and the public schools not only teach sexuality, they provide contracetives without the parents' permission.
* I do not know why you believe that fathers in TX beat their children any more than parents in, say, NYC. Please provide a source forthis data.
* The "life of the mother ends" precisely where all life ends -- in death.
* That half of all natural inseminations end in death does not provide a moral rationale for dealing more death. I remember a time when virtually all cancers were death sentences. Did we regard this as a sound rationale for, say, murder?
* I suggest you do not lke the phrase "mass killing" because it calls you out. It is factually accurate. It describes PRECISELY what occurs. It sounds so much "NICER" if you label it a "difficult issue." (Just as "Final Solution" sounded better than "mass killing.")
* If you are proud of abortion, why not stick out your chest and say "I am all for mass killing?" (We have established that is what abortion has been.) I'll tell you why -- because it is easier to slink around the issue and hide behind empty verbiage ("Final solution") that accurately labels what you do and what you know to be shameful.

There you go, another wild-eyed right winger refering to their heroes in nazi germany accusing anyone who dares to call their extreme histrionics exactly what it is -- worse than nonesense. You show you are unwilling to discuss this issue, but rather get some kind of kick out of thrashing wildly at others around you. You are the loser here and do not deserve more response.

You are on thin ice and you know it. "Mass killing" describes abortion in a purely factual manner. You don't like what you advocate -- you are probably a decent person and inwardly ashamed. So, instead of responding to specifics of abortion you make the issue whether I am "wild eyed" or not. Now, what I asked was specific (e.g. your source for your allegations re TX)-- but you avoid specifics. These are too dangerous -- they work against you.

I have detected a lot of your sort of logic in the pro-abortion movement. Frankly, you folks don't have anywhere near the gusto you once had. I think that modern sonography, gendercide and the waning of the Feminist movement (now about as cutting edge as 8-Trac tapes)have left the abortionists demoralized. I suspect that most in your camp know very well that killing an unborn baby is a foul thing to do -- so they retreat into sullen silence and snarl "You are the loser."

I can't remember which Amendment enshrines equality of all citizens under the Law. Since pregnancy is a condition unique to females, abortion right issue is how to redress naturally imposed inequality to one group of citizens under the US legal system. That should have been the constitutional starting point of Roe vs. Wade, not the Privacy rights issue.

So women can have babies but men can't, and this means they are unequal? Since this is a biological condition, not one imposed by government or society, I'm not sure what constitutional amendment can do to fix that. Some people are just more equal than others, I guess.

That is the new preferred pro-choice argument but it doesn't necessarily follow that putting women back in the position of men is the only solution. Men can compensate the women. E.g., prohibit gender discrimination in health insurance, maternity leave.

The rest of the world never really grasped the idea of the sovereign individual contrasted with the dependency-generating state. Efficacy imposed by some social organ may satisfy some but has demonstrable shortcomings of justice.

"The rest of the world never really grasped the idea of the sovereign individual contrasted with the dependency-generating state."
Some countries require collectivism purely as survival mechanism. Living in the World Capital of natural disasters ruled out individualism in Japan. (Individualists had a tendency to perish at the next major disaster).

You seem to have a limited understanding of what is going on in 'the rest of the world'. It is typical of humans to be egocentric and ignore current events or history that involves 'other' parts of the world. In western Europe, for example, the current result is not imposed by 'some social organ' but has been called for by people desiring to rise from the ashes. Much of it is logical, some of it is surely going too far, and in many places people are forcing the excesses to be drawn back or eliminated.

There are, of course, examples of negative outcomes that you complain about around the world, they are not 'the rest'.

Sorry, it is Americans like you that never grasped the idea that we are born unequal through no fault of our own. The mark of civilisation is to acknowledge that fact and cede some of your rights/money for the common good. I am sure most of those “sovereign individuals” in the States, who happened to fall seriously ill through no fault of their own considered it very fair to lose their homes to pay for unaffordable medical bills. Likewise the parents of children, or anyone else gunned down by idiots! They sure as hell defend every sovereign idiots right to own a gun! Kindly tell me the “demonstrable shortcomings of justice” for individuals, who consider it humane to help others? Don’t bother it’s a waste of time.

The left abandoned using the courts for their agenda??? Really??/ Sorry that is hardly the case from prohibiting prayers in the class room to quota admission in colleges the lefts use of the courts is alive and well. The most recent case of the left attempting to use the courts was the Citizens United case restricting free speech.

Ahh, well consider this. The courts are there for everyone and they are 'used' by 'the right' as much as by the 'left'. People, and in the US that is supposed to mean everyone, have the right to use the courts for legal redress for many kinds of reasons. You simply seem unable to accept that people who disagree with you should have that right.

It seems bizaare that the courts on the one hand accept the idea of abortion and on the other will commit someone for murder when a gun assault ends in the baby being killed when the mother survives. The logic, which I believe all know deep in their hearts is that a baby before birth is still a person and deserves protection.

I just ran across the "abortion rights as equality, not privacy" argument on a pro-life blog. Or rather, the argument against it. Apparently, it's the new trend among pro-choicers. As I suspected, it's a gender equality argument. But is it new or merely the recognition of prevailing pro-choice thought? Pro-lifers have been called women-haters for a long time and it hasn't been all that effective. It's been blunted by the fact that the pro-life movement is now being led mostly by women. Even more amazing is that it wasn't a top-down PR strategy but an organic grassroots development. And as I stated earlier, the equality argument opens the door to some tough counter-arguments. Why should the father have no say? At the very least, shouldn't he have the right not to provide child support? And as The Economist has noted in the past, even pro-choicers are uncomfortable with gender-selective abortion. The equality argument can be used as an argument for more abortion restrictions.

Gendercide -- abortion by gender -- is the pro-abortion side's problem from hell. Uniformly, in China, India and other Asian countries, this means mass abortion of daughters. With modern sonography it is not difficult to determine the sex of the unborn infant early into term. Since Asian cultures privilege sons, and since China has a one-child rule, the girls are aborted. Estimates -- and they are only estimates -- put the number of aborted Asian girls at around 100 million over the past twenty years (since sonography became common.) It may be a lower number -- or it may be much higher.

To the pro-life side, there is no ambigtuity here. What is happening is a moral horror -- like all abortion. It does not matter whether the unborn were females or males. Killing is killing and death is death.

But, it ties the pro-abortion side in knots. Abortion is overwhelmingly a feminist argument. "Control over our own bodies . . . Our bodies, Ourselves" . . . we all know the slogans. But, into this woman-centric world comes the mass annihilation of tens of millions of females babies in the womb. It simply paralyzes the pro-abortion lobby (and they are not pro-choice: they are pro-abortion.)

It is symptomatic of the moral bankruptcy of these feminists that they can find no moral basis with which to object to mass killing of female unborn. Or to killing on the basis of sex selection. After all, in their moral world nothing trumps the woman's desires.

What are we to think of a "morality" that can find no way to object to killing tens of millions of unborn infants -- just because those infants are females?

These feminists? What, are you stuck in a jar with Gloria Steinem?
The rest of us out here in the real world have some sympathy for those of you who trapped yourselves in Hades (academia). True, the real world is more challenging that the simple black and white facades y'all are so fond of.
But I have to admit, life is fair. You make an evenly matched couple. Well suited for each other.

The world is full of people who, for various religious/political reasons, believe they have an Obligation to force their own beliefs on everyone else. The good news about a liberal, humanist society (like the US founding fathers envisioned) that lives under the rule of law is that religious/radical beliefs are subject man made laws; e.g., the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The bad new is the religious/political radicals tend to be highly motivated to change the "Law of the Land" to fit their prejudices. One price of freedom is constant vigilance against the tyranny of "true believers".

But you are backwards on this, it was the "true believers" on the Left that have rammed abortion down everyones throats. Now we export it and it is in our taxes.
A new right was created out of whole cloth, where life, previously protected, could now be ended legally. The Law of the Land changed 40 years ago to reflect the prejudices and ignorances of the day.

A strength of the US, constitution based, rule of law is that laws are mutable. When the people decide some law needs to change; e.g. slavery, male only suffrage, the constitution can be amended to reflect the new "ignorances of the day."

While I am pro choice with limitations, I would have preferred the question had been settled via the legislative process. That said, the question will always divide people of goodwill.

In another reply, I reference the Dredd Scott decision. In that case, the religious radicals bought a case before the court to destroy slavery, the court upheld slavery and four years later, it was brother versus brother. The "True Believers" (Evangelical Christians) were heartened by their faith, that "All Men, Slave and Greek" written almost two thousand years earlier, meant them, and meant now. Enough so that they fought a civil war upon their own countrymen. Terrible, those true believers, going around freeing slaves, or today, claiming that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" applies to every one, not just the strong and the vocal, but also to the weakest and most vulnerable.

And the population of the world has more doubled since then anyway. You and your fellow travellers should consider reality -- over 50% of all fertilized human ova are terminated due to 'natural' causes, without active intervention. Your 55 m (if it is correct) is a small percentage of all these fertilized ova. And still the population of the US will soon double from the time of RvW. It is time for all excessive abortion rights opponents to get real.

So would each aborted American adult. Of course, neither is actually true. It's the mirror image of the "finish your dinner because there are starving children in Africa" fallacy. Whether I eat or not, it has exactly zero effect on children in Africa.

Killing people is no way to justify feeding others. How myopic. By your logic the killer of the Sandy Hook students should be praised for allowing starving children in other parts of the world to eat better and more food.

Killing people is no way to justify feeding others. How myopic. By your logic the killer of the Sandy Hook students should be praised for allowing starving children in other parts of the world to eat better and more food.